NO.202G. REVISION OF CRINOID GENUS HIMEROMETRA— CLARK. 281 



interpret as referring to Hartlaub's Antedon crassipinna from Am- 

 boina, which is the same as Antedon inopinata, Antedon Tcraepelini, and 

 Actinometra rohustipinna. 



In 1902 Bell, under the very comprehensive name of Antedon pal- 

 mata, recorded a comatulid from the Maldive Islands which, proving 

 to be a species of Himerometra, has been named Himerometra sol. 



In January, 1908, the present author described an interesting new 

 species of this genus under the name of Himerometra persica from the 

 Persian Gulf, in July of the same year noted the fact that he had 

 seen specimens of Himerometra crassipinna (i. e., martensi, his con- 

 ception of crassipinna up to this time being entirely based upon speci- 

 mens from Smgapore) erroneously labeled ''Japan," and in August 

 pubUshed a note m which he stated that, while absolutely unrecog- 

 nizable from the description, BeU's Antedon inopinata evidently be- 

 longed to the "Savignyi group" of Carpenter and not to the "Gran- 

 uhfera group" in which it had been described; at the same time he 

 called attention to the redescription of Carpenter's Actinometra ro- 

 hustipinna by Koehler; not having at the time seen the type of Ac- 

 tinometra rohustipinna, it was only natural to assume, as Koehler had 

 done, that the Actinometra from Amboina with enormously large 

 lower pinnules was really the species described by Carpenter, though 

 now we know that it is really Comanthus hennetti, while Carpenter's 

 species is a Himerometra. 



In December, 1908, there was published by the present author a 

 preliminary notice of a large collection of comatulids made by the 

 United States fisheries steamer Albatross among the Philippine Is- 

 lands, in which there were described as new Himerometra hartscM, H, 

 rohustipinnxi, and H. magnipinna, while H. persica, recently described 

 from the Persian GuK, was recorded from the Philippines. Himero- 

 metra hartscJii and H. magnipinna are valid species, and the latter is 

 the form to which the specimen from Cochin China, recorded by 

 Hartlaub under the name of crassipinna, must be referred, though the 

 fact was not recognized at the time; H. persica is in reality the closely 

 related H. hartscM, while the species described as H. rohustipinna is, 

 by a curious coincidence, the same as the Actinometra rohustipinna of 

 Carpenter. 



In 1909 the present author recorded and described at some length 

 numerous specimens of a species of Himerometra from Singapore; 

 these he referred to H. crassipinna, believing them to represent the 

 Antedon crassipinna of Hartlaub. Subsequent investigation has 

 shown that in reality they represent the Antedon martensi of Hartlaub, 

 and should have been recorded under the name of Himerometra mar- 

 tensi. At the same time he redescribed Antedon martensi (under the 

 name of Heterometra martensi), basing the redescription upon a small 

 and immature specimen from Singapore which appeared to meet the 



